You'll have to wait a "year-ish" for Google Glass

In an interview with the BBC, Google's Eric Schmidt said users will have to "develop some new social etiquette."

Google's "Project Glass" has seen quite a bit of buzz since the wearable communication device was made available to a limited amount of beta testers earlier this year. In an interview with the BBC, Google Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt discussed when Google Glass will be commercially available and how the device will change human interaction and social norms.

Schmidt had this to say about the timeline for Google Glass: "It's fair to say that thousands of these will be in use by developers over the next months, and then based on their feedback we will make some product changes, and it's probably a year-ish away."

Schmidt acknowledged Glass's cost, saying "the price tag was set for developers for early test. We don't have news to announce there. I'm not sure I would call it a luxury price, but it's a pretty high price."

The public's reaction to Google Glass has been mixed. It seems that people are either really excited to try the new technology, or they worry that it will become the downfall of normal human interaction and privacy.

"The fact of the matter is we'll have to develop some new social etiquette," Schmidt told the BBC. "It's obviously not appropriate to wear these glasses in situations where recording is not correct, and indeed you have this problem already with phones."

Working the specialty coffee scene near Google's San Francisco office, I have had the pleasure of serving several people wearing Google Glass and I'll admit that it is very distracting to try to have a normal conversation with someone when you are not sure if you are being recorded. I am constantly wondering where the footage will end up and I instantly become extremely self aware and uncomfortable. (In my dystopian future, I imagine people checking their Google Glass at the door before entering speakeasy-type establishments. A vision that may not be too far-fetched.)

Schmidt addressed the issue of privacy: "Companies like Google have a very important responsibility to keep your information safe. You have responsibility as well to understand what you are doing and how you are doing it and obey appropriately and also keep everything up to date."

Comments

No, really, soon we all will have to watch out for the 'daytime zombies' wearing these "googles". As a walker, I am tired of been rammed or crashed by people walking into or by me while texting. In Montreal, a girl got killed by a Metro train. She just walked into the opening/gap between two trains while texting. Not to mention the car accidents caused by people driving while on a handheld (or handless) phone or texting.

I am thinking of putting a small red X on my glasses to explicitly show I do not want to be recorded, I want to stay private, and I give no consent. Let the cam person digitally remove me from the scene if he does not mind reality-altering. This would need to catch on and it should not be a problem -- becoming second nature once somebody gets reminded of it.

Additionally, Google glasses should glow red if recording, which is consistent with today's mikes being on.

All in all, I'd love to have an image from my car's rear-facing camera right at my glasses. The audio proximity feedback is lousy and a central display counter-productive as I am turning my head/body around to check clearances.

I wont talk to a person unless they take the glass off before our conversation.I dont like this crap at all, it can do great harm.

Also tinfoil hat: the us government could have a live feed from anyone wearing the glass, would NOT be the first time google and the US government share private and personal data from someone that uses any service owned by google.

It seems the problem is not with google glass but with western society which thinks it is normal or even necessary to be duplicitous. Then google glass appears like a threat to unveil it. If you are consistent and ethical you would not care to be published at any time. And in case you have to deal with confidential information, you have to trust the other side anyways not to publish you. You do not need google glass to secretly record a conversation. Plenty of methods available already. Google glass is simply a new gadget aiming to make communication more easy. That is a good thing.

I'm one of "old-timer's mind" and want to tell HappyGuy - dont be like frisking puppy. Cause it have made not for you to have a fun. But for serious wolfs, who want to know all about you. I dont worry about spys, that is more about advertising sharks and manipulative politics.

I was really excited to read about this product, and now have seen some footage in action. As a Photographer, and part time journalist, this looks amazing.

But, like our friend from the coffee shop said, I think I would be uncomfortable talking with someone using it. I don't want everything I saw to be sitting on someones youtube account.

In Canada, there has been much discussion recently about people posting video of a sensitive nature about attacks on women - specifically school girls who have a little more to drink, and either get raped, or - well you get the point. We are starting to talk about laws to prevent the exploitation of people.

Now, I'll guarantee the first large orders will be from Homeland Security, and Police departments and Border services - basically they will use these tools.

George Orwell might have been about 30 years early in his prediction, but he got it right. Big Brother is Watching...

I foresee wearers not being marveled at for their google glass; more they will be spurned for being a google ass.

This is Schmidt and google just using the force of their windfall profits to elbow their way to what seems to be the next logical iteration of technology. I'm sure there was no small measure of "get the jump on Jobs" factor that was at play in this development.

There's a much higher probability that this will be amusing to watch than it being any kind of amazing.

It is because people are expecting too much, and the product currently is underwhelming. But we must start now, and I'm sure it will be just like people imagined it 10 years from now.

At the moment, it's about as good as an iWatch that can relay some information from your smartphone. It has a camera that captures images on demand, but we all know how limited that still is. Just try it on your smartphone. Battery and processing is nowhere near efficient enough to handle an all day's worth of active image analysis to give you an altered reality. And if it could do that, it seems like we still don't know how to overlay images into our direct view. I think we'll need a breakthrough in technology for that.

Sorry to be blunt but this exactly the mindset that puts in place the pointless mechanisms in use by the FAA and other agencies. What is different about wearing google glass as opposed to receiving direction over a mobile phone? Just because this is a relatively new application of existing technology does not mean it poses any threat additional to what we have today. The only threat is the one to my civil liberties by people who think like you and the fact that politicians will pander to the lowest common denominator.

You think there is a possibility that people will make a show of taking off the Googlass (c), and continue recording with their wrist watches or car key fobs or buttonhole cameras in peace? ;)The only problems I can foresee are more related to such recording's usage (same as it is today).An illustrative case might look like:- "I saw you on YT! Weren't you supposed to be working yesterday? And who's the bimbo?"...... resolving itself with:- "I Want A Divorce", or- "You're Fired", or even- "You have a right to remain silent..." etc.;)

Absolutely the dumbest product idea ever. Many of us spend thousands of dollars to AVOID wearing glasses and Google thinks we are going to want to wear these idiotic things that make us look like sheep?

I Predict this will be like the Segway. You see a few wealthy weirdos using them every once in a while, but really not even close to mainstream. I remember the inventor of that product telling anyone who would listen that is would change society and transportation as we know it. Nope.

Segway is operating a fleet in Prague in the pedestrian zones. The thing is that personal injury laws are weak-to-nonexistent in this country and they are just taking advantage of it. It is very uncomfortable walking around these riders.

I witnessed a situation where one rider's wheel hit a post, Segway falling on a rider, spinning wildly and unpredictably -- and people cheering in response. There is nothing worse than getting ran over by Segway on your vacation, particularly in Prague.

The idea is to strengthen the privacy laws in response to technology encroachment by Segway, Google, or iSomething.

I agree. I already refuse to have phone conversations with organisations that tell me that the conversation is being recorded "for training purposes". Amex rang me the other day and said "Hi, I would like to talk to you about applying for a new card. Just to let you know, this conversation is being recorded, ok?" Me: "No. Good bye."

A bigger issue is that people will be able to reverse people's likenesses in Google Image search and find out their identity. Try it, you can do it now from home already. Take a social media avatar, upload it to Google Image search and it will spit out their twitter, their facebook, etc. This is going to have major implications.

@Dvlee: where exactly is the "right of individuals to not be photographed and recorded without their permission" found? Hate to break it to you but if you are in a public place, you have no such "right". In fact you are probably being recorded dozens if not hundreds of times per day without your knowledge now as it is.

Photographers deal with the issue of using someone's likeness for commercial purposes, which is different.

Well, someone can begin working on a wireless device that disables or scrambles all image and sound-recording gadgets within, say, 50 meters around it.I imagine many would like to have something like that installed on their premises, so it should be on the shelves sooner than in a year-ish.Unless, of course, some big money finds a way to make it illegal, by declaring that "personal freedom of recording has been taken from the people"...

@ Old Arrow...I beleive it is already illegal to operate a jamming device but it is not illegal to construct a pysical barrier that blocks cell signals. Some movie theatres and restaraunts have installed copper sheeting to block cell signals from their establishments.

In the old days it was a great fad to carry huge transistor radios to the beach and annoy everybody around with loud music (there were no media drives then). A friend and I had a laugh, tweaking a pocket radio which was able to re-send. You only had to find the station the hooligans were listening to, and be within 100 meters from them. The ensuing microphony was astounding, and when the attacker-turn-victim started fiddling with buttons and knobs to "repair" - priceless!Of course, modern jammers need not weigh that much (not having to be portable), but this could open an interesting field of "illegal vs. illegal".On the more practical side, what would be effective against video? Low-grade moving / vibrating laser grid? IR? It should not affect vision, just render video record unusable...Who knows, maybe there will be a worldwide award for it, like for human-powered flight, or for getting rid of fog from the airports. ;)

Surely you could only legally wear these glasses in public and would have to remove them when entering private property? I can see "No google specs beyond this point" signs becoming popular and may be a good money-spinner for sign makers!

The Panasonic FZ1000 II is a worthy successor to the company's first large-sensor, long-zoom bridge camera, and a value-conscious rival to the popular Sony RX10-series. It's just as fast as its predecessor but produces nicer JPEGs, has significantly improved controls and interface, and more.

Latest buying guides

What’s the best camera costing over $2000? The best high-end camera costing more than $2000 should have plenty of resolution, exceptional build quality, good 4K video capture and top-notch autofocus for advanced and professional users. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing over $2000 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that might be a bit older but still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for shooting sports and action? Fast continuous shooting, reliable autofocus and great battery life are just three of the most important factors. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for shooting sports and action, and recommended the best.

Believe it or not, there are still people that like to print out their photos and create photo books to send gifts to family members. We looked at five popular photo printing services and have chosen the best.

If you are looking for a fun photography project to try, Mathieu Stern has a neat idea for you. Using the 'anthotype' process, Stern used only beetroot juice, paper, a photo positive and a bit of time in the sun to create a phytotype photograph.

Cameras' video capabilities just keep getting better. But what if you're not interested in video? Here's why you probably won't get stills-only versions of most cameras, and why they wouldn't be cheaper, if you did.

DxO has announced Nik Collection 3. The popular plugin suite includes a new Perspective Efex plugin for fixing distortion and adjusting perspective, bringing the total number of plugins in the suite to eight.

The term 'computational photography' gets used a lot these days, but what exactly is it? In this article, the first in a three-part series, guest contributor Vasily Zubarev dives deep to show us how photography will work in the future.